Negative consequentialism is a new way of looking at ethics that is different from traditional utilitarianism. Instead of focusing on making the most people happy, it focuses on reducing suffering. Let’s break it down:
Different Core Idea: Traditional utilitarianism tries to create the most good for the most people. In contrast, negative consequentialism asks, “How can we lessen harm?” This means it cares more about reducing pain than just adding joy.
Making Moral Choices: Imagine a new law that could make many people happier, but would really hurt a small group. Traditional utilitarianism might support that law because it seems to help the majority. However, negative consequentialism would likely say no to the law. It believes stopping that harm to the smaller group is more important.
Importance of Rights: Negative consequentialism often connects with talks about human rights. It argues that stopping harm is something we should prioritize, even over trying to make people happy.
In short, negative consequentialism changes the way we think about ethics. It encourages us to consider the effects of suffering, not just the good outcomes.
Negative consequentialism is a new way of looking at ethics that is different from traditional utilitarianism. Instead of focusing on making the most people happy, it focuses on reducing suffering. Let’s break it down:
Different Core Idea: Traditional utilitarianism tries to create the most good for the most people. In contrast, negative consequentialism asks, “How can we lessen harm?” This means it cares more about reducing pain than just adding joy.
Making Moral Choices: Imagine a new law that could make many people happier, but would really hurt a small group. Traditional utilitarianism might support that law because it seems to help the majority. However, negative consequentialism would likely say no to the law. It believes stopping that harm to the smaller group is more important.
Importance of Rights: Negative consequentialism often connects with talks about human rights. It argues that stopping harm is something we should prioritize, even over trying to make people happy.
In short, negative consequentialism changes the way we think about ethics. It encourages us to consider the effects of suffering, not just the good outcomes.